(07-01-2012 07:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote: Back in the dark ages, this chick on deviantArt directed my attention to BitLord. So i went out into teh nets and helped myself to what was available. One thing I do continuously that a mofo can learn from, is question my morality continuously.

What is theft? Come in my house, jack my XBox, that's theft, make me mad. Come in my house, jack my Sylvia poster, that's blaspheme. Someone has to die. It is not nearly as crazy as it sounds; rather it illustrates the clarity between I and mine. Steal my shit till there's nothing left, I'll be dead. People don't do these calculations because they have become domesticated by civilization. Civilization is undeniably progress, this money shit still needs work. The coin of the realm is an investment of a person's life; and now there's parasitism.

And I had this mp3 player that would not allow me to put pictures of my Gwynnies on it because of DRM. Threw that shit away, became a pirate. Not because I steal shit, not because I am right; but because the other side is clearly wrong. That's my moral perspective.

Nothing wrong with you getting paid for your work. This thing, however, becoming the Living Word of Gwynnite; there's an over-reaction. Should Gwyneth be paid for her work, or should we just not tell her?

(07-01-2012 07:39 PM)Chas Wrote: How are you going to define "fully paid"?

By the number of copies sold. I didn't do the math and I couldn't tell how many it would take to cover all your work plus profit, plus bonuses plus investment etc. But such a number can be reasonably calculated.

Quote:And after a movie is 'fully paid' do theaters get to charge for showing it?

Yes.

Quote:Does anyone get paid for storing it? Delivering it?

Yes.

Quote:Does a TV station get to charge advertisers for showing it?

Yes.

The author can keep trying to make money off his previous work. The only difference is that he will be unable to stop non-commercial free independent distribution for (self)educational and informative purposes. The author should not be forced to make any effort to make his work available for free distribution.

He can still sell commercial copies of his work and, especially in the case of a complex experience (watching the movie in a theater rather than on your laptop, going to a live concert or admiring the art in an art gallery), his work remains economically viable even after educational copies have leaked. The author maintains ownership of his work's commercial value.

If you decide to upload a movie on youtube, for example, you either do it on a commercial-free channel, you share earnings from commercials with the owner of the movie or you display the owner's commercials for free.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

Quote:And after a movie is 'fully paid' do theaters get to charge for showing it?

Yes.

Quote:Does a TV station get to charge advertisers for showing it?

Yes.

The author can keep trying to make money off his previous work. The only difference is that he will be unable to stop non-commercial free independent distribution for (self)educational and informative purposes. The author should not be forced to make any effort to make his work available for free distribution.

He can still sell commercial copies of his work and, especially in the case of a complex experience (watching the movie in a theater rather than on your laptop, going to a live concert or admiring the art in an art gallery), his work remains economically viable even after educational copies have leaked. The author maintains ownership of his work's commercial value.

There's a contradiction here. Someone else (the theater) is now making a profit with my work.
So even though my work is 'fully paid' and you say I have ownership of the commercial value, so the theater has to pay me to use my work.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

Quote:And after a movie is 'fully paid' do theaters get to charge for showing it?

Yes.

Quote:Does a TV station get to charge advertisers for showing it?

Yes.

The author can keep trying to make money off his previous work. The only difference is that he will be unable to stop non-commercial free independent distribution for (self)educational and informative purposes. The author should not be forced to make any effort to make his work available for free distribution.

He can still sell commercial copies of his work and, especially in the case of a complex experience (watching the movie in a theater rather than on your laptop, going to a live concert or admiring the art in an art gallery), his work remains economically viable even after educational copies have leaked. The author maintains ownership of his work's commercial value.

There's a contradiction here. Someone else (the theater) is now making a profit with my work.
So even though my work is 'fully paid' and you say I have ownership of the commercial value, so the theater has to pay me to use my work.

No contradiction. The theater is a business that sells your product. It goes under the commercial rights that you get to keep. Unless the theater runs free or extremely cheap (expenses-only) shows for educational/charitable purposes, they need to pay your share of the earnings.

I give you an example to illustrate why I am so interested in this project. Last year I needed an old book for a personal project of mine. It used to be a best-seller in the 90's. I looked for it in every book store I could think of, but couldn't find it anywhere. Finally, I come to Ireland and I visit a 3 store book supermarket. They did not have it for sale at all. I looked on line and I only found places where that book used to be available. They actually still hunt down every digital copy available on line and get it forcefully removed. Finally I order it through a shop and they tell me it's out of print and it's nowhere to be found in Europe. They found a few copies left in a fucking storehouse in Bumfuck US. I ordered it from there and it came to me very late and I paid an arm and a leg for shipping plus the full price. It's outdated information and the book itself is quite obsolete, but I'm a fucking geek and I wanted it badly enough to go through all that trouble.

Can anyone tell me why such information is virtually lost for new generations? What excuse does anybody have for keeping it copyrighted just for the heck of it? I have read books (literature) when I was young. I looked for my hard copies everywhere, but they got lost somehow. Most likely, someone borrowed them and never brought them back. I tried to find those books and buy them again. Nowhere. I look on line. Nowhere. In no fucking language. Those books might as well have never existed. I know I'm not crazy because I talked about them and people from my own generation vaguely remember them, just like me. Copyright laws have literally erased information that I hold valuable for absolutely no good reason. They are virtually lost from the world's memory and I am very pissed about that. For all I know, they only existed in hard copy and every single one of them was recycled, burned or buried, but if i were to find the last copy intact somewhere, somebody would surely disapprove of my actions if I would scan it and spread it on line to prevent its loss.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)